¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 After reading and reflecting on more than a thousand comments from last fall’s open peer review, the Trinity College editorial team has selected nineteen essays to advance to the final manuscript of our open-access digital book, Web Writing: Why and How for Liberal Arts Teaching and Learning, under contract with Michigan Publishing. This stage of the process took much longer than expected (entirely my fault), and the decision-making was more difficult than originally anticipated. In the end, we were not able to advance a number of well-written, thoughtful essays due to our need to create a more cohesive volume on teaching and learning, as well as our book contract to deliver a manuscript with no more than 75,000 words. (This target was very challenging, since the original set of essays had a total word count of 89,000, meaning that cuts were inevitable.) As explained in our editorial process and intellectual property policy, authors whose work did not advance to the final round were notified by private email, and their work will remain archived on our website. We sincerely appreciate the contributions we received from all authors.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 For the nineteen essays that we selected to advance to the final stage, authors received either a letter of acceptance (with some revisions) or an invitation to revise and resubmit. All of these editorial decisions appear in the public comments, which are linked below for the convenience of readers, who may be curious to learn how the process works.
- ¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0
- Sister Classrooms: Blogging Across Disciplines and Campuses, by Amanda Hagood and Carmel Price
- Indigenizing Wikipedia: Student Accountability to Native American Authors on the World’s Largest Encyclopedia, by Siobhan Senier
- Science Writing, Wikis, and Collaborative Learning, by Michael O’Donnell
- Collaborative Writing, Peer Review, and Publishing in the Cloud, by Jack Dougherty
- Consider the Audience, by Jen Rajchel
- Engaging Students with Scholarly Web Texts, by Anita M. DeRouen
- Tweet Me a Story, by Leigh Wright
- Creating an Environment for Student Engagement and Web Writing: The “We Just Want Stephen Colbert to Come to Our College” Super PAC, by Susan Grogan
- Public Writing and Student Privacy, by Jack Dougherty
- Getting Uncomfortable: Identity Exploration in a Multi-Class Blog, by Rochelle Rodrigo and Jennifer Kidd
- Curation in Writing: Using a “Building” and “Breaking” Pedagogy to Teach Culture in the Digital Age, by Pete Coco and M. Gabriela Torres
- Student Digital Research and Writing on Slavery: Problems and Possibilities, by Alisea Williams McLeod
- Web Writing as Intercultural Dialogue, by Holly Oberle
- Web Writing and Citation: The Authority of Communities, by Elizabeth Kate Switaj
- Empowering Education with Social Annotation and Wikis, by Laura Lisabeth
- The Secondary Source Sitting Next to You, by Christopher Hager
- There Are No New Directions in Annotations, by Jason Jones
- How We Learned to Drop the Quiz: Writing in Online Asynchronous Courses, by Celeste Sharpe, Nate Sleeter, and Kelly Schrum
- Learning to Write at a Distance, by Shawn Graham
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 These authors must submit their revised essays by May 15th and receive our final approval in order to advance to the book manuscript, which will be publicly hosted on our new PressBooks/WordPress platform at Trinity (more about this soon) as we prepare it for online submission to Michigan Publishing (more about that too, once we figure it all out!). The digital book of revised essays will include links back to the original essays on our CommentPress platform, and vice versa, for readers to compare and assess the influence of the open peer review process.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 In addition, we decided to post one more essay for open peer review, titled “Cooperative In-Class Writing with Google Docs,” by Jim Trostle. (Full disclosure: he is one of our faculty colleagues in the Department of Anthropology at Trinity College.) Although we received his essay after our normal review period, we believe that this short piece and its companion video clips may illustrate some key concepts about teaching and learning with digital writing that could be especially helpful for newcomers. Tell us what you think by commenting on the essay at link above.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Finally, the editorial team wishes to thank EVERYONE who commented during the Fall 2013 open peer review period. In particular, we appreciate the hard work of four expert reviewers appointed by the publisher, who posted under their real names, but were not publicly identified until now: Barbara Fister, Jason Mittell, Amanda Seligman, and Kate Singer. (If you followed the comments closely, you know that Barbara intentionally revealed her identity back when we launched the process, and months later, I still laugh out loud when re-reading her comments, like this one.)
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 This morning I downloaded the comments table from our open peer review site and found that 70 of us posted 1,073 comments from September 15th to November 1st, 2013. Together, these comments totaled over 78,000 words (the equivalent of 121 single-spaced pages), which was almost as long as the original set of essays (89,000 words). Those numbers simply amaze me, and perhaps explain — at least a tiny bit of — our delay with the post-review editorial process). If you’re interested in exploring the comment data, here’s a public, clean copy that anyone may download (Excel format). I cleaned up this version to make it easier to read, and removed personal emails and IP addresses that WordPress collects with your comments, and also removed about 250 comments from before September 15th or after November 1st, as well as various pingbacks and blog post comments that were not comments on the essays themselves. If you find some interesting patterns in this data, perhaps through a content or network analysis, please share your insights with all of us.